On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
>>>> same input?
>>>
>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
>>>
>> STFU about it.
>
> In other words,

I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩

Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer